The
Battle In The States: Freedom Vs Protection
By
Tom
DeWeese and Mark Lerner
Across
the nation, state legislatures are struggling to take back their
Constitutional rights as they also seek ways to protect us from outside
threats. This has led to some near schizophrenic legislative sessions with
laws swinging widely from left to right.
Making
it more difficult to get a handle on the situation is the fact that there
has been an outgrowth of near “rabid” anti-immigration groups that have
sprung up demanding near-Hitler-style tactics to “fix” the problem. While
the situation is certainly serious and demands action, these groups openly
admit that they are willing to surrender their liberties if that is what
it takes to end illegal immigration. They may deeply regret that cavalier
dismissal of liberty. Once lost, it is rarely regained.
To
address these issues, three very distinct, but widely variant legislative
actions have appeared in the states.
First,
legislation dealing with protecting the integrity of the Tenth Amendment
and state sovereignty has been introduced across the nation, passing in at
least 21 states. The states are reacting to the frightening growth of the
federal government through anti-terrorist legislation such as the Patriot
Act and Real ID, as well as the outrageous spending included in the
bailout and stimulus bills.
Second,
to address the illegal immigration issue, legislation in many states would
provide state law enforcement with the ability to share information
through direct electronic access. Many law-enforcement agencies are
eagerly supporting such legislation. Yet, this type of legislation clearly
contradicts the intent of the states sovereignty effort.
Third,
again racing back to the other side to protect personal privacy from
federal surveillance, there is legislation introduced to prohibit the
collection of biometric samples/data, social security numbers and the use
of RFID chips in state driver's licenses.
One
might ask, what do these pieces of legislation have to do with one
another? They each go to the heart of a battle being waged across
our country to decide how much Constitutional power the federal government
has to collect, retain and share the personal information of each
citizen, and how much power it has to force states to provide it?
Tenth
Amendment legislation is exactly what the name implies – that states
have Constitutionally-guaranteed rights and powers. It puts the
federal government on notice that states will not act as its surrogates.
The legislation unequivocally tells the federal government that
its power comes from the citizens and the states and that federal powers
are limited and defined rather than unlimited and arbitrary.
Fusion
Centers
As
for those patriots who believe the illegal immigration is so dire that
liberty should be thrown on the bonfire, perhaps they need to better
understand what they are demanding.
Legislation
introduced in several state legislatures, and currently in debate, allows
state and local law-enforcement agencies to have direct access to one
another's databases. Some of the anti-immigration patriots might see it is
as prudent legislation until one takes a closer look.
Most
states now have Fusion Centers. Fusion Centers were originally
intended to allow local and state law-enforcement to work alongside
federal officers so that activity suspected of being terrorist related
could be identified and responded to by all three law enforcement
entities in a coordinated manner. Fusion Centers have
representatives of all three working side-by-side in one
office.
Fusion
Centers are funded primarily by the federal government. Some believe
them to be an effective tool to fight terrorism with little that one could
find objectionable. The problem is, Fusion Centers have overstepped
their intended purpose. This is typical when dealing with the issue of
technology and invasive databases. Mission creep is just too easy.
In
state after state we see Fusion Centers focusing on all suspected
criminal activity, including misdemeanors. Some would ask you to
believe that the mountain of information about citizens being
accumulated actually stays within the borders of a state unless a
citizen is suspected of terrorist activity. However, the Fusion
Center in Oklahoma has been directed to develop procedures for the sharing
of information with the FBI and DHS.
This
means that direct electronic access is not limited to just state law
enforcement agencies and departments. Since local, state and federal
authorities are working together, there is no plausible reason to believe
federal law enforcement will not gain access to all information a state
law enforcement or local law enforcement authority would
have.
The
Missouri Outrage
All
citizens should take note of a document produced in Missouri by that
state’s Fusion Center. That document targeted activists, including
supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr. It directed Missouri
law enforcement to give special attention to those holding such
political beliefs and consider them to be a security risk and potential
domestic terrorists. According to the same document, members of militias
should also be singled out. According to the Missouri report, anyone
advocating limited government and objecting to the massive growth of the
federal government is to be considered a security risk.
Whether
a citizen is a Democrat, Republican or Independent, the idea that citizens
supporting their candidate of choice should be categorized as domestic
terrorists is outrageous. The document is so inflammatory that the
Lt. Governor of Missouri suspended the head state law enforcement officer
in the Fusion Center. It is also worth noting that the Oklahoma
Fusion Center will develop privacy protocols. One might reasonably
ask why the privacy issues were not fully addressed before the Fusion
Center became operational?
However,
the issue of the collecting, retaining and sharing of citizen's personal
information is not unique to Fusion Centers. Law enforcement in each
state has information sharing agreements, not only with federal
agencies/departments, but also with foreign entities and international
organizations.
There
is a literal web of Memorandums of Agreements, laws and other mechanisms
such as participation in international organizations that has entrapped
all Americans. The most personal and sensitive information of
Americans is being shared globally.
Oklahoma’s
SB 483
A
prime example of such dangerous legislation that could lead to an
international surveillance state is Oklahoma’s SB 483, which will
authorize the Commissioner of Public Safety (DPS) the authority to enter
into “agreements” with other state agencies and allow these other agencies
“direct electronic access” to the DPS database of computerized photos.
Moreover,
the Federal Department of Homeland Security is targeting such state
databanks and clearly has stated it wants full access to them. It then
intends to share them with international databanks. That is why every
state must carefully consider the dangerous side-effects of such
legislation being promoted as simply an answer to illegal immigration and
terrorism.
As
Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key says, such legislation is
“incrementally putting into place systems that could, 1) violate citizens
constitutional rights, 2) unintentionally harm innocent citizens, 3) allow
for the continual effective dissolution of our rights enumerated in the
Constitution.”
Biometric
data and Social Security numbers
The
final piece of the puzzle is the third tier of legislation making rounds
in several state legislatures that would prohibit state governments
from collecting biometric samples/data and social security numbers of
citizens who apply for driver's licenses. In direct opposition to
bills such as SB 483, Oklahoma is considering such legislation which calls
for the removal of existing biometric information and social security
numbers from the state motor vehicle database. Such legislation is
intended to protect our personal privacy.
Under
the provisions of the Real ID Act of 2005, states that comply with that
law are required to collect the digital facial biometric samples of all
citizens who apply for a state driver's license. In layman's terms,
this means you can be identified while walking down the street by a
CCTV/surveillance camera. Your facial image would be scanned and the
image would be converted to biometric data and compared to images stored
in state or federal databases, including your motor vehicle
database.
Again,
in Oklahoma, some lawmakers have figured out the only way to stop the
federal government and international organizations from getting their
hands on citizens personal information is to stop collecting the
information and putting it in state databases.
It
is important to note that the legislation does not impede Oklahoma law
enforcement from collecting the information either through a search
warrant or as a result of a person being charged with a crime. One
lawmaker stated it should not be a “novel” idea that the presumption of
innocence is protected or that privacy means something. A
Pennsylvania lawmaker stated that we have been told many times since
9/11/2001 what privacy does not mean but we do not hear what it
does mean.
Abuse
of power by the federal government is and has always been a concern.
Our forefathers addressed the potential for abuse in our
Constitution. Since the 1950's we have witnessed many abuses of
power including revelations about what the FBI, NSA and DHS have been
doing since 9/11/2001, invading personal privacy, monitoring phone calls,
home invasion without notice or warrants, etc.
The
abuses have become a pattern of complete disregard for our
Constitution. Russell Tice, a former NSA analyst who previously
worked for Naval Intelligence and the Department of Defense came forward
and stated American citizens were having their phone calls intercepted,
emails read and financial transactions monitored. He came forward
because he said he did not want to live in a police state.
The
Inspector General of the Justice Department stated the FBI had abused
National Security Letters and obtained information improperly. The
Inspector further stated the FBI was not forthright in disclosing all the
National Security Letters it had issued. In one three year period
alone, the FBI was issuing an average of over 100 of the letters a
day. National Security Letters, by their very nature, avoid the
need for search warrants. Some in the U.S. Senate have accused
DHS of "bullying" states to comply with the Real ID Act 2005. DHS
has been asked to adhere to what is known as FIPP (Fair Information
Practice Principles) and yet has failed to do so. FIPP requires,
among other things, that there be transparency when information is
being collected.
Our
driver's licenses are the link between everything we buy and sell. You
need a driver's license for just about everything these days. The
vendor who produces 95% of all driver's licenses has proposed a Real ID
Solutions driver's license in which a citizens “political party
affiliation” would be on the face of the driver's license. The same
vendor, who happens to be the largest biometric company, made their
biometric facial recognition technology available to the Red Chinese
government. The Communist Chinese did exactly what one would expect
from a totalitarian state. They used the technology to identify dissidents
-- people who were opposed to the policies of the government. Does that
sound like the Missouri situation?
Most
Americans have never heard of Enhanced Driver's Licenses. These
licenses contain RFID chips that can allow for the tracking of people and
also for "bad" guys to obtain your personal information by stealing your
unique identification number contained on the chip and linking that number
to your identity. The current Secretary of Homeland Security is on record
saying she believes that Enhanced Driver's Licenses should be issued by
all states.
Consider
DHS's pilot program that relies on a computer software program to help
determine if you present a threat to our government. This pilot
computer program, called “Project Hostile Intent,” makes assessments about
the way we walk and dress, as well as other behavioral
characteristics. The computer program will make a judgment as to
whether or not you present a threat. That means when you are walking
down the street keep in mind that a camera lens could be pointed at
you. Make sure you are dressed "right" and do not walk in a funny
manner. What are the chances of you, or someone you care about,
being picked out by the camera? Considering the hundred's of
millions of taxpayer dollars that DHS has released for CCTV/surveillance
cameras the chances are getting better everyday that you won't be left
out. Cameras are going up so fast that they remind me of
the postal mailboxes that used to be placed on about every
block. The cameras are everywhere.
America is
at a crossroads. States have finally awakened to rediscover their
Constitutional powers in the Tenth Amendment, yet as they do so, they are
also being pressured to surrender the liberty and privacy of every
American in the name of security. Americans are concerned, listening, and
are ready to take action. State lawmakers are also ready to listen. All
citizens have to do is take a few minutes of their time to contact their
state and national lawmakers and say enough is enough.
Terrorist
organizations such as Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and other groups such as Hamas
have trained hundred's of thousands of terrorists. Our intelligence
community only knows the names of a very small percentage of these
people. The fact is that terrorists do not need driver's
licenses to carry out acts of terrorism. They can use passports and
international driver's licenses while in our country to facilitate their
goals. Criminalizing all Americans into a surveillance state is not the
answer.
Legislation
to protect us from the surveillance state is being considered in state
legislatures across the country. Many states are rising up against
implementation of Real ID. Others are passing resolutions to take a stand
for state sovereignty. But others are going in the opposite direction with
legislation to allow massive databanks of our most personal information to
be shared internationally.
In
Oklahoma there is still time. The same is true in other states.
Oklahoma residents should call their elected leaders in the state's House
of Representatives and say they oppose SB 483.
Every
American should now call their state representatives and tell them to
support Tenth Amendment legislation and any bills that would end the
orgy of collecting and sharing of information, starting with citizens
biometric information and social security numbers.
These
new efforts to create a surveillance society represent a threat to almost
everything guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, from freedom of speech to
freedom to be secure in our homes, to the freedom of being innocent until
proven guilty. The time to stop it is now.
Tom
DeWeese, President of American Policy Center (www.americanpolicy.org) and Mark Lerner,
Executive Director, Stop Real ID Coalition (http://www.stoprealidcoalition.com/)
URGENT 
